http://codereview.chromium.org/342035/diff/1/12 File src/arm/fast-codegen-arm.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/342035/diff/1/12#newcode179 Line 179: ASSERT_EQ(Expression::kValue, expr->context()); On 2009/10/29 15:15:25, William Hesse wrote: > Why are you dropping the optimization for a constant literal here? As part of getting rid of the move "location" -> register, I was trying to simplify the code here since we have plans to make the subexpression responsible for putting itself in r0. I'll put the shortcut back in for now. http://codereview.chromium.org/342035/diff/1/8 File src/compiler.cc (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/342035/diff/1/8#newcode58 Line 58: void ProcessExpression(Expression::Context context, Expression* expr) { On 2009/10/29 15:15:25, William Hesse wrote: > Could this be called VisitExpression? > I think the expression should be the first argument, and how you visit it should > be the second. I will change the order of arguments, and I'm open to changing the name. I don't want to call it "VisitExpression" because it's too easy to get it confused with the other Visit<AST node type> functions, and it's subtly different. http://codereview.chromium.org/342035/diff/1/6 File src/ia32/fast-codegen-ia32.cc (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/342035/diff/1/6#newcode168 Line 168: __ pop(eax); On 2009/10/29 15:15:25, William Hesse wrote: > Restore optimization? Done. http://codereview.chromium.org/342035/diff/1/9 File src/x64/fast-codegen-x64.cc (left): http://codereview.chromium.org/342035/diff/1/9#oldcode463 Line 463: Location destination = expr->location(); On 2009/10/29 15:15:25, William Hesse wrote: > Why wasn't this giving an "unused" warning before? Dunno. http://codereview.chromium.org/342035 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
